Pay women a decent wage per child, like a good part of the average wage per child until the child turns 18. That’ll be a clear incentive to get children. Everything else is just ineffective tinkering. In a classic rural setting children were a labor force. In a modern urban setting they’re a very expensive hobby with lots of unpaid labor. In a quid pro quo world, pay up. Children are not free. If that’s not possible then a growing population is not economically viable in the current system. Better luck in the next system.
Some regimes have tried to force the issue, banning all abortions and contraceptives. The end result was a population that was shrinking more slowly and orphanages overflowing because children were dumped as people didn’t have enough money to support them.
South Korea, Japan, Germany, and many other countries “grappling” with decreasing birth-rates have to consider paying parents for children. They are a full-time job.
I do believe however that it should be tied to performance. The worse you do in raising your child, the more the state inserts itself into raising the child. All parents should have to take mandatory classes on child-rearing e.g what is good food for a child, importance of vaccines, how much sleep does a child normally need, how to recognize developmental problems (speech impediments, physical problems, …), and so on. Basically, pressing a phone into the hands of your child and letting them watch youtube all day probably isn’t good for them, neither is feeding them burgers and smoking around them.
South Korea, Japan, Germany, and many other countries “grappling” with decreasing birth-rates have to consider paying parents for children. They are a full-time job.
“Kindergeld” has been a thing in Germany since a very long time, and it’s per child. Does it pay like a full job? No… but parents do get paid.
Does it pay like a full job? No…
And that’s the issue. It’s a pittance and isn’t going to convince many people to get kids .
You’re both right and wrong in my opinion. Children take to as much time as a job, for sure, and probably more. But if you consider it work to bring them to and watch them at a football / soccer match on the weekend that you should be reimbursed for by the public, you maybe shouldn’t have kids to begin with. You (hopefully) don’t have kids because you feel obligated by society, but because you want them.
It needs to strike a balance where this is accounted for.
It is often said that children are investment in our future and given the way our world functions, that is the truth. Now, would you rather invest the minimum in our children and their parents and hope that it’s incentive enough to have them, or do as much as possible to encourage having enough children as well as well-rounded ones?
IMO you should stop seeing it as a “reimbursement by the public” but an investment. Good football players don’t just fall out of the sky. You need the facilities, the trainers, and yes, the parents to be there to drive them to games, encourage them not to give up when they lose, to take care of them when they get hurt, to buy their equipment, to cheer them on, and a lot more.
I don’t want to argue against the concept and actually believe that the amount paid here is too low. What I tried to point out is that determining a good amount is difficult and arguing with work makes the matter more complicated.
The more pressing issue would be to make child daycare actually available.
Understood.
The more pressing issue would be to make child daycare actually available.
That is indeed a compounding problem. Paid parenthood might actually contribute to solving that, but I agree, there’s nowhere enough daycare available and it’s barely affordable already.
What you say is correct and is also what is happening. Some have no children, some one of two. The end is fertility rate below replacement rate. Many people that want children stop at 2 because then it becomes too hard to combine with a job and costs too much. If there government wants more children, support is needed.
much time as a job, for sure, and probably more. But if you consider it work to bring them to and watch them at a football / soccer match on the weekend that you should be reimbursed for by the public, you maybe shouldn’t have kids to begin with.
It’s not about being reimbursed for it by the public; it’s that this sort of thing can simply be incompatible with a full-time job if you have more than one or two kids, and in modern Western society it’s very hard for the average household to live on one income. That’s the crux of the issue here; it doesn’t matter why you want to have kids if it’s unfeasible to have kids.
First the pandas now the people. Why don’t things from China fuck
This is largely the same in most developed nations.
There may be some policy decisions making things especially problematic in this case.
All these solutions (tax breaks, etc.) don’t appear to fix the more fundamental problem of it is too expensive to have a kid, work / life balance does not allow it and homes are too expensive.
deleted by creator
A slow and steady drop is manageable but when the drop is sharp, it will result with a smaller pool of younger generation having to take care an extremely large pool of aging generation with their taxes. China is suffering the after effect of one child policy and they’re panicking.
Your first sentence is correct. But if you look at the historical data, the sharpest drop in chinese fertility rate was several years before they introduced the one-child policy, which also ended several years ago without apparently making any difference. Also, fertility rates in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan are even lower. As these rates are also lower than europe, that maybe related more to housing affordability and density, possibly combined with some common evolution of ‘eastern’ values.
